Re: Responding to Ron's comment about removing fragmentation

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 14 November 2014 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06031A90FE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:47:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Oi0NZiHfq9Z for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:47:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EB9D1A1A4C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:47:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sAEKlj8g007988; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 21:47:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from dhcp-9bf8.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-9bf8.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.155.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 53CAA43D; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 21:47:44 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
Subject: Re: Responding to Ron's comment about removing fragmentation
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <5466662F.6080400@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:47:39 -1000
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 437690859.385866-4fad22c7497100326b1692b4933a3e55
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FE6C2980-804D-4D76-94AE-B4A40ADA33A0@tzi.org>
References: <5466662F.6080400@acm.org>
To: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/FBbF8-qizRFewOOh0Kpwp4RoAGo
Cc: IETF IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>, Ron Bonica <ron@bonica.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 20:47:56 -0000

Having a single MTU is not very useful thinking: Every tunnel then causes a fragmentation problem.

Instead, we need to keep two MTUs:
The one exported to the top of stack (inner MTU), and the one imported from the bottom of the stack (outer MTU)

The inner MTU is 1280, and with IPv6 it is really hard to use anything that is much closer to 1500, as old style (RFC 1191) PMTUD so overwhelmingly breaks and PLPMTUD (RFC 4821) incomprehensibly isn’t switched on.

The outer MTU is 1500 for all instances of reality.

By never sending more than 1280 from an application and never limiting the available MTU below what tunneling removes from 1500, most applications and tunnel stacks can just work well.

Apart from the cognitive dissonance problem, do we really need that 17 % (max) reduction in the number of packets that jamming up the inner MTU to the max would allow?

Grüße, Carsten

PS.: Yes, we made the mistake not to recognize these simple facts in 6LoWPAN.   See section 4 of draft-bormann-6lo-6lowpan-roadmap-00.txt for the (unofficial, but widely implemented) fix.